Lateral Clipping of Canopy Influences the Microclimate and Development of Apothecia of<i>Sclerotinia sclerotiorum</i>in Carrots
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four canopy management treatments were evaluated in carrot (Daucus carota) production in Bradford Marsh, Ontario, in 2001 and 2002: (i) unclipped control; (ii) unclipped canopy with manual removal of collapsed senescing leaves at 2-week intervals following the first appearance on the soil; (iii) lateral clipping of the canopy at the initial emergence of apothecia, leaving the debris in the furrow, and (iv) lateral clipping of the canopy with manual removal of the debris from the furrow. Clipping reduced the canopy width by ca. 20% on both sides of the carrot bed by cutting off overlapping leaves above the furrow and senescing foliage on the soil surface. Maximum air and soil temperatures were up to 9.2 and 3.1°C lower, respectively, and relative humidity was up to 30% higher in unclipped canopies than in clipped canopies. The total number of apothecia in clipped plots was reduced by 74 and 76% compared with unclipped plots in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Canopy clipping reduced the quantity of apothecia in the crop by creating an unfavorable microclimate for the development of S. sclerotiorum without affecting the fresh foliar and root weights of carrot at harvest. The presence of clipped foliar debris in the furrow affected the number of apothecia in 2001; however, apothecia under the debris are unlikely to contribute to the overall inoculum in the crop. Lateral clipping also appeared to control Sclerotinia rot of carrot where it occurred (in 2001). This is the first report that documents and quantifies the effects of canopy architecture on the microclimate, development of apothecia of S. sclerotiorum, and Sclerotinia rot in carrot crops.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".